Merger of SIA Legal Team and If/When/How reproductive justice lawyers unit announced March 13, 2019

Two powerful groups fighting for women’s reproductive rights have joined forces under the If/When/How name. Their goal? Creating a national network to push back against restrictive abortion legislation in every state, helping those ‘whose rights are being trampled.’

The merger of SIA Legal Team and If/When/How—two existing pro-choice groups that already shape policy, file lawsuits, and inform lawyers around reproductive rights issues — launched today March 13. To date, most legal work in the reproductive rights arena has focused on protecting clinics and providers. Executive director Jill Adams says the new organization will also focus on providing a network of attorneys for everyday people facing reproductive rights challenges.

Ryan Magers Madison County, Alabama

Examples of new lawsuits include that of Alabama man Ryan Magers of Madison County, Alabama, who recently filed suit on behalf of an aborted fetus, claiming that his girlfriend had a medication abortion against his wishes in February 2017. In the law suit, filed in January, Magers filed a petition to serve as the “personal representative” of the aborted fetus’ estate.

Next, Magers sued the clinic that performed the abortion, the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Huntsville, on behalf of himself and “Baby Roe,” as the fetus is referred to in court documents.

On March 5, Madison County Probate Judge Frank Barger granted Magers’ petition to represent the estate in a decision his attorney, Brent Helms, said broke new legal ground.

NARAL President Ilyse Hogue called the decision a “very scary case”. “This is the logical consequence of all anti-abortion activity,” tweeted Erin Matson, founder of Reproaction. “Fetuses are treated like people and women and people who can become pregnant are not.”

In November 2018, Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment making it Alabama state policy to “ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child” and “recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.”

This action is a setup for passing personhood legislation, which would establish the “fetal personhood” of a fertilized embryo, putting the state of Alabama in legal charge of pregnant women in the state. If this legal case sounds like it’s right out of The Handmaid’s Tale, it is.

A Federalist Society for Women’s Rights

Announcing the formation of If/When/How,, communications director Andrea Grimes likened the new organization to a pro-choice counter to the Federalist Society, committed to stripping women of their reproductive rights.

In announcing the direct outreach to legal professionals across America, Grimes explained: “[Lawyers] know they have skills and knowledge and privilege and influence that could be of use, but to date there has been no place for them to plug into the reproductive rights and justice movement and so all of that talent and potential has been lost.”

Operating as If/When/How, the new organization will pursue SIA Legal Team’s mission of decriminalizing self-managed abortions. Anti-abortion forces like The Federalist Society, argue that the US Constitution must be strictly interpreted in 2019, as it was written when women had no rights — although abortion was legal. The Federalist Society oppose nearly every form of contraception, not only abortion.

In addition to its goal of decriminalizing self-managed abortions, the new organization will also focus on other issue areas including improving young people’s access to abortion and securing public insurance coverage for the procedure. The group will also be working on legal routes to overturning the Hyde Amendment.

If/When/How already operates law school chapters on 100 campuses in the U.S. and Canada, with more than 10,000 alumni. Brigette Amiri, deputy director at the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, is one of the more public members of the organization. Wednesday’s merger will double the group’s staff, giving it representation in eight different cities around the country. Based in Oakland, Calif. the group will have a major presence in Texas and New York. Read more about this important new group in the legal fight for reproductive justice and consider funding a monthly donation.

See update at end of article regarding new lawsuit filed against the Trump Administration.

By Yana Rodgers, Professor of Labor Studies, Rutgers University. First published on The Conversation

Fulfilling Republican efforts to “defund Planned Parenthood,” the Trump administration announced on Feb. 22 it would end federal funding to health providers that perform abortions.

This new ruling is the domestic version of the “global gag rule” that Trump imposed in 2017. It cuts U.S. global health funding from organizations abroad that perform – or even talk about – abortions, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

First implemented under Ronald Reagan in 1984, the global gag rule has been rescinded by every Democrat and reinstated by every Republican to occupy the Oval Office, reflecting the partisan nature of abortion.

Supporters of the global gag rule say defunding abortion providers will reduce abortions. However, researchers from Stanford University in 2011 found that this U.S. policy actually made women in sub-Saharan Africa twice as likely to have an abortion.

Gag rule increases abortions in Latin America and Africa

My new study, published in November 2018, confirms those findings in Africa and shows that the global gag rule had an even greater effect in Latin America.

Analyzing abortion data from 51 developing countries between 2001 and 2008 – which encompassed the reproductive decisions of about 6.3 million women – I found that women in Latin America were three times more likely to have an abortion while the global gag rule was in effect.

Reflecting this impact, the percentage of pregnancies in Latin America that ended in abortion rose from 23 percent in 1994, under the Clinton administration, to 32 percent by 2010, after two terms of the Bush administration.

In the United States, where abortion is legal nationwide, about 18 to 23 percent of pregnancies end in abortion.

How a US law hurts women abroad

Funding cuts under the global gag rule cause health care staff reductions, clinic closures and contraceptive shortages. Without family planning counseling and birth control, there are more unintended pregnancies – and, consequently, more abortions.

Numerous studies confirm that making abortions harder to get doesn’t stop them from happening. It just makes them less safe, because the procedure is not necessarily performed in sterile facilities by qualified doctors.

Latin America, a heavily Catholic region, has the world’s most restrictive abortion laws. Six countries, including Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador, completely ban abortion. Others permit it only in extreme cases like rape, incest or maternal health.

Latin America also has the world’s highest rate of illicit abortions, according to a 2017 study in The Lancet. Seventy-five percent of all abortions in Latin America are performed illegally.

Since Trump reinstated the global gag rule in 2017, health workers in developing countries have reported drastic reductions in the availability of contraception, teen sex education and family planning services.

If the U.S. follows this trend, the domestic gag rule will soon push abortion rates up domestically, too.

Followup from Anne:

American Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Sue Over Trump's 'Gag Rule' on Family Planning Clinics TIME Magazine

On Tuesday March 5, 2019 the American Medical Association and Planned Parenthood jointly filed a federal court lawsuit chalenging a new domestic Trump Administration rule that impacts family-planning money. Simply stated, the proposed new guidelines seek to defund family-planning grant money to any organization that is also an abortion provider. For decades federal funds cannot be used to reimburse any organization for actual abortions. Now the Trump administration seeks to strike at the heart of any Planned Parenthood clinic, even though the vast majority do not offer abortion services. In doing so, the Trump Administration seeks to destroy the largest supplier of basic healthcare services — across a wide range of healthcare services noteven related to reproductive health generally — to poor women in America.

Featured